![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
On the basis of WP like other encyclopedias preferring entry by the noun, and for consistency with other articles, I ask for opinion on changing the name to "Open access publisher" DGG 05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"Open access publisher" as a title would make no sense. The article is about "open access" in the sense of scientific publishing. The article is not only about "open access publishers" such as PLoS or BioMed Central, it is about the whole concept of open access. There's no reason to change the title. Fences and windows 23:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The section "Open access by the numbers" used to contain an explicit call for statistics in support of the "open access" movement. I have removed this inappropriate call to action, and tagged the section for merger. Based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I think the best way to handle this material is to convert it into prose, and simply delete any statistics that are blatantly not neutral. (Others have also complained about this section on other talk pages, before this article was reorganized.) -- Beland 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
== —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
The question of whether this page should be merged with open access journal has been asked again. There are some reasons for having two pages:
Opinion? DGG 05:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As sharnad points out, "open access publishing" is ambiguous. It means either the publication of open access journals, or a system of whatever sort for publishing that produces open access, whether through open access journals ("gold OA") or self-archiving ("green OA"). This is the general article, and I have therefore moved this article back to the term Open access (publishing) DGG ( talk) 06:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Surely this is about scholarly literature, not all information. So why are newspapers mentioned? This article is degenerating, it needs a total overhaul. Fences and windows ( talk) 01:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
the article appears to claim that the Annals of Mathematics is open access. It is not. Try their webpage; you can't read the articles without a subscription (which costs money). 137.82.175.12 ( talk) 01:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The last paragraph which begins, "In May 2006, the US Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)" seems to be an unsourced commentary for the most part. Anyone want to take a stab at finding some sources? Otherwise, I'll move it here for further discussion. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I found a text saying that free access only allows downloading and private printing for personal use. Is that correct?
In the context of academic publishing, does free content mean that I can further distribute to anyone, for example on paper or on my own website? I.e. does it mean the same thing as free content? Are usually free content licenses like creative commons or GFDL used, or some othern license form? Any restrictions regarding non-commercial use?
In other contexts than academic publishing, "free access" does not necesserely mean free content.
/Magnus
I'm concerned that many of the recent edits from User:Crusio have been to the net effect of preserving anti-OA bias. He personally has somewhat of a conflict of interest (as founding editor of one academic journal), but the problem is broader than that. There are sections which are fair; but others where there's lots of subtle anti-OA bias, which I believe should be removed because of WP:NPV goals.
Exactly how is it that assertions that grant requirements for OA can be described as unwarranted governmental intrusion, with no cite provided -- my cite request was reverted!! -- without even acknowledging the hypocrisy deriving from the fact that much of that research was in the first place funded by "intrusion" from said government? Or that non-governmental funders also exist, and also have interests in OA? I see three resolutions: provide the cite; note the hypocrisy/bias; or remove the biased assertion. I've tried the first two. Is there another, or is it perhaps time to try the third? I get the feeling I'll see another bias-preserving revert the instant I do so...
There are other examples of such subtle bias. Presenting, unopposed, arguments which presume everyone interested in research has access to well connected and populated research libraries comes to mind. Denying that just being able to browse a research collection is an important process, too ... that's just basic cognitive science, new ideas often are seeded by random juxtapositions which can't happen when the only way you get access to papers is to search cites and wait a month to get them all via some interlibrary loan. (Librarians are not always eager to do the inter-library thing either, so the fact that it might be theoretically possible may be insignificant.) Ease of access to information can be a significant factor; certainly when I've done research, a month's lag would have completely prevented success.
It's perhaps understandable that this article not really dive into the institutional politics underpinning some OA objections ("this is a threat to my institution"), and advocates ("that institution is an obstacle"), but refusal to acknowledge existence of such conflicts does not prevent them from being significant factors. And such refusal is itself a subtle form of anti-OA bias, in that it permits established institutions to present themselves as neutral actors ... when they are anything but that.
And another big issue here is that large parts of this article are fairly chaotic. How can such stuff be fixed when folk like User:Crusio instantly revert anything fix-like ... instead of providing better fixes? Including in some cases, removing valid cites; or facts that could only be claimed to be controversial as part of an effort to hide uncomfortable issues.
Color me puzzled. It's long been my understanding that WP prefers incremental improvements. How do we get there from here?
-- 69.226.238.251 ( talk) 09:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There is some discussion in the AMSCI-forum and foundation-l on WP and OA. Although I do not appreciate most of Harnad's positions I also see Open Access (Publishing) as onse-sided and therefore POV. The name of the article should be: Open Access (Scholarly Movement) -- FrobenChristoph ( talk) 15:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I had to fix a link today
An alternative link would be
http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/frpaa/index.shtml
G. Robert Shiplett 20:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett ( talk • contribs)
In the criticism section there is: "The "article processing charges" for open access shifts the burden of payment from readers to authors," How is this different from the fees charged by all Journals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRWolfie- ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any real evidence that "open access" beyond scholarly journals is anything more than extrapolation on the part of Wikipedia editors, unless anyone has any references of note. There is an interesting comparison between open access scholarly journals and "free" business models (advertising supported, donation supported, etc.), and this should be covered in electronic publishing, and probably also publishing and broadcasting.
Open access journal was trying to be the article on "full open access journals" in parallel with Hybrid open access journal and Delayed open access journal which are mostly pros and cons and lists. But the ambiguous title has resulted in lots of overlap with Open access (publishing), including a general overview, advantages, disadvantages, criticism, and history. I think a merge of the two articles would make the content considerably less redundant and easier to navigate. "Open access journal" is a fine title for the resulting article, given the assumption of a scope which only covers scholarly journals. Given the length of the resulting article, spinning off "History of open access journals" would also be necessary. Any objections? -- Beland ( talk) 08:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I.
Are you proposingto merge OAJ with hybrid OAJ and delayed OAJ? or to merge OAJ with OA(publishing)
I hope you do not mean the later: Open access journal means a journal which is published open access. "gold open access", like PLOS. The predominant method of open access at the present day is the archiving of author (or published) versions of articles such as PMC or Arxiv, or doing this in institution repositories, as at Southampton or Cornell. ("green" open access). Open access journals refers only to the first. Using it in the more general sense would be a total misunderstanding.
II.
I therefore assume you mean the three OA journal articles:
It would be difficult to merge delayedOA journals into OAjournals, because delayed oa is not actually OA and does not meet the definitions. A delayed oa journal is not an OA journal. It's a more or less close approach to an OA journal. Nobody who actually supports OA has ever accepted it as OA. Many of us them have supported it as an intirim measure, to get publishers accustomed to the idea, but that's the most. Some don't even support it, as being a harmful diversion from actual OA.
Hybrid OA journals -- that article needs a lot of work to update, because most commercial journals are now hybrid oa in principle, including every springer journal--although not many articles have been published that way yet. The only hybrid journal of importance that does contain a good deal of OA is PNAS.
DGG ( talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this update as it really is illegible but i invite anyone else who can make sense of it to re-insert it in a format that makes sense.
Silent1 02:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This section just reaks of weasels (ie. the wall-buiders like Elsevier) clinging to their defenses. Would somebody more knowledgable care to clean it up? -- 90.157.169.77 ( talk) 15:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a rice-bowl battle afoot between some of the big commercial publishing concerns on one side and open access scholars on the other. I suspect this should find some discussion in the article. Obviously Wikipedia (like the rest of the online world) is intrinsically biased in favour of publications that allow free access, but we still treat wp:PAYWALL sources as nominally equal. This is going to be interesting. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
We really should mention the Finch committee and related developments: [1], [2]. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The addition of an unreferenced list of "Major Open Access publishers" many of which are red links is POV and wikipedia is not a directory. Theroadislong ( talk) 18:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Gold OA and Green OA currently redirect here, and a brief definition of both is given in the introductory paragraph. I think, though, that they both merit their own article. Any opinions on that? -- Daniel Mietchen 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
New section title added, so as to better reflect the discussion below.
Reconsidering the matter, I think it would be good to spice up Open access journal with some information on OA book publishing and to rename that article to Open access publishing then. As this may easily lead to confusion with Open access (publishing), what about renaming this one into something like Open access (scientific literature)? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS ( talk) 00:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we focus more on the question on who pays? Author-paid content vs. free-to-deposit repositories?
"Open-access" focuses only on the reader. Many commercial journals offer open access if the authors pay. That gives well-funded projects an advantage over less well-funded work. The option to waive fees is not realistic, as I have found out. They told me they go by country of origin mostly, individual situations are to difficult for them to verify.
So there is author-paid content and free-to-deposit content. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.139.6.250 (
talk)
00:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
User:78.15.203.238 has suggested that it is a violation of viewpoint neutrality to call journals that do not provide immediate free online access "non-OA journals," if they ever, at any time, in the near or distant future following publication, make their articles free online. By that reasoning, all people who ever give up smoking in the near or distant future are already "non-smokers," now (and it's non-neutral to suggest otherwise). So are all women who eventually get pregnant, in fact "pregnant" now.
There is of course a simple solution to this: distinguish OA journals from OA articles. An article is OA if and when it is freely accessible online. No ambiguity there. It can be non-OA yesterday and OA today. Indeed, it can be non-OA again tomorrow. Not so for journals. If a journal is an OA journal, that means all if its articles are freely accessible, permanently, immediately upon publication. Otherwise it is simply not an OA journal (though some of its articles might eventually be made OA, either by the journal or by their author). The only special case worth naming is "hybrid OA/non-OA" journals -- the ones for which articles are non-OA, except if the author pays for OA publication, in which case they are made freely accessible, permanently, immediately upon publication. All other journals that do not make all their articles permanently free online immediately upon publication are simply non-OA journals. A journal may make its articles free online after a delay; but that does not make it an "OA journal," any more than giving up smoking or getting pregnant Thursday makes you a non-smoker or pregnant on the preceding Tuesday.
For an article, OA is a "state"; for a journal, it is a "trait." Loosen up the latter and you will not only generate a huge batch of "OA" journals because they free their contents online 80 years after publication (calling themselves "DOA" journals), but the slippery slope will also lead to "OA" journals that cost only a little online ("LOA" journals).
This is all just word-play -- vendors trying to promote their product by attaching buzz-words to it that connote something people value. But what is valued here is unambiguous: free online access. And if that's not there, now, it's not OA. harnad ( talk) Stevan Harnad 03:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a short paragraph noting that some people argue that the public does not need access to specialized journal, etc... and references an article to that effect. The reference number is 83. I went through this article and could not find that argument anywhere. I could have missed it, but if I didn't, the reference ought to be removed. Perhaps the whole par. should be tossed if we can't find a ref to anyone who holds it. I'm sure SOMEONE holds that pov? But maybe not...I sure don't.
I propose to merge the article Predatory open access publishing into the criticism section here. I realize that this article is already very long, but that is mostly due to a long-overdue pruning (the whole article should be brought to compliance with WP:MOS, for example). "Predatory journal" or "predatory publishing" is a concept that for the moment basically rests on one person (Jeffrey Beall) and all sources in the current article are interviews with him or reporting of his views. So while there has been media attention for his concept, I don't think that there is material enough for a stand-alone article and that it would be enough to have a short paragraph in the criticism section here describing his views. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It's ridiculously bad. I still don't know what exactly it is that should be accessibly openly. By the way, in Wikipedia, you don't abbreviate the main topic of the article. Write "open access" and not "OA". 130.92.9.55 ( talk) 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I realize this page is on a topic of great interest to Wikipedians, but as a working profesor in the humanities, it contains far too many unsourced assertions of opinion, stated as fact. I deleted one sentence that was framed as opinion, completely unsourced and quite inaccurate on several points: "However, this argument has no relevance to academic publishing, because scientific journals do not pay royalties to article authors and researchers are funded by their institutions and funders." User:Randykitty chose to revert my deletion without explanation. "Academic publishing" includes much more than science and much more than journals, and professors like Toni Morrison, Philip Roth, Charles Baxter, Ann Beattie, and many others earn the majority of their income from sales of books, which are formally considered "academic research" within the university system, and are not funded by taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately the bulk of the research on Open Access is written by advocates and often fails to take into account what are clear and obvious primary facts--for example, directly implying that all professors work in the sciences and stating that all research is taxpayer-funded, none of which is even close to being true, as can easily be seen by looking at the faculty roster of any university. Is there a way to make this page more balanced/NPOV without getting into a giant war? Wichitalineman ( talk) 18:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Wichitalineman expressed a desire to have sections in this article describing the application of the open access content to things other than academic journals. This is not the focus of open access, however, this has been done. I wanted to make a request for sources about these things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Some scholarly publications are like academic journal articles in the sense that the writers have always given them away for free and requested that all people be able to read them. Such publications include theses, dissertations, preprints, postprints, and perhaps related datasets. If anyone has sources which describe how the open access concept applies to these things then please share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Some publications written by scholars have traditionally been sold or produced for hire, such as magazine or newspaper articles, books, and various creative derivatives of academic journal articles. If anyone has sources which describe how the open access concept applies to these things then please share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Wichitalineman informed me that Elsevier published an OA issue of one of its journals - see here. This journal includes some excellent criticism of OA which could be integrated into this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello! On Friday 19 September 2013 some attendees at OKCon, a conference of the Open Knowledge Foundation, will be participating in an effort to improve this Wikipedia article and others related to the concept of open science. Anyone who would like to contribute to this article as part of this drive to improvement should do so! Details of the event are at Wikipedia:Workshop/Open_Science_Workshop_(Geneva)/References#Main_References. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The sections with external links, article as a whole but especially "External links," "Further reading," and "Empirical studies" all need cleanup per WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. Given how well-referenced the article is, there's really no need for all but a few external links. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've commented out two paragraphs from the 'Definition' section, rather then delete them, because I'd like to heard other people's opinions on whether they should be removed. My reasons are twofold. Firstly, it reads rather like original research, rather than being a summation of relevant other sources. Secondly, the paragraphs in question broaden the term open access to include many other things beyond research literature. I believe that these other materials that are mentioned, such as newspapers and broadcasts, should not be included in the category open access, even when they share similar characteristics. The Budapest/Bethesda/Berlin declarations refer only to open access to the research literature and I would argue that this narrower definition is what is generally meant by open access. - Lawsonstu ( talk) 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Currently this article emphasizes the differences between green and gold OA and the adoption of OA. I would rather this article emphasize what OA is rather than how it can be implemented. I added a history section and a motivation section. I may make other changes. I just wanted to say hello here if anyone wants to discuss what I am doing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Since I did a major rearrange of this article I wanted to share my rationale. I am not soliciting for feedback at this time but any feedback here or development of the article would be welcome. I intend to begin working regularly on this article for a while.
I have been reading Suber's book. It is available gratis here if anyone wants to check it out with me. I do not think the section headings of the book are right for replication in a Wikipedia article but I am still thinking about Peter's presentation, and obviously Peter has been putting a lot of thought into outlining this himself. I just rearranged this article a lot, but in all these edits, I was not adding or removing content. Right now I have condensed all the content into four sections
I want to get rid of the "see also" section by having better wikilinks in the article and replicating this content in the navboxes below. I also want the further reading section gone after integrating most of those sources into the article and putting just a few in external links. These are just thoughts. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
There is disagreement as to whether Wikipedia articles should use the phrase 'open access', or 'open-access' with a hyphen. Over the years this has resulted in the article Open access journal being moved back and forth a few times. I thought it be a good idea to have a discussion here, with everyone giving their reasons, in order to come up with a general guideline for editors to follow when editing articles on the topic. I am inviting everyone with an opinion on this to leave comments with their reasons below.
Previous discussions include: here, here, and the edit history of the article Open access journal.
As I see it, there are three options:
My strong preference is for option 1, for the following reasons.
'Open access' is the preferred term among many of the people and organisations who are responsible for defining the concept (e.g. SPARC, Peter Suber). I believe that it is the version of the term most commonly in use (although I do not have statistics to back up this claim). Many organizations and initiatives outside Wikipedia use the form without a hyphen (e.g., Directory of Open Access Journals, Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, Budapest Open Access Initiative, Global Open Access Forum, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, Registry of Open Access Repositories, Social Science Open Access Repository). I light of this fact, I see no reason why Wikipedia should use the hyphenated version when the term stands alone.
The question of whether to use a hyphen to describe something which is open access, such as 'open-access journal', is perhaps a slightly different question. I think the phrase 'open access' is the name of a concept, and should thus be treated as a single phrase to describe this concept. Therefore an open access journal is a journal which is 'open access'. This means that a hyphen is not needed. I hyphen would be needed if you were to say 'openly-accessible journal', for instance, because this phrase describes a journal which is openly-accessible, rather than a journal which is 'open access'.
For these reasons, I believe that we should only use the term 'open access'. This differs from the standard usage for hyphens set out in Wikipedia:HYPHEN#Hyphens, but is consistent with how the term is used outside Wikipedia. The Manual of Style is there to inform the way we write on Wikipedia, and not to dictate how language should be used. Wikipedia articles should reflect the real world.
- Lawsonstu ( talk) 08:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Suggest adding the text (to the end of the last paragraph of this section):
although this is often not the case with mathematicians everywhere, and researchers in all areas working in institutions in developing countries. Strictly speaking, if it is a requirement for authors to pay to have their articles published, then open access is put on the level of advertising or the vanity press. [1]
Ankababel ( talk) 11:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
It is a matter of degree. A clue is in the fact that, as you state above, "...there are dozens upon dozens of respectable OA journals (and even more disrepectable ones..." ("dozens upon dozens" — surely an exaggeration!). My point is that accepting payment for publication moves the journal from a pure scholarly publication towards the vanity press. This, surely, is indisputable. Perhaps you are just disputing where the boundary should be put — I put it at the pure end. Ankababel ( talk) 09:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
New to talk pages but thought I'd raise this.
I propose the deletion of the definitions of the 'Libre OA' and 'Gratis OA' in the definition section of this article. These terms are not widely used IMHO, and they are not well defined (unlike that of Open Access itself which has clearly been well defined in this article).
Furthermore, given the definition of Open Access. It seems to me that the term 'libre' is a superfluous addition. Open Access is already libre in it's definition. Gratis (only?) would also seem to contradict the defintion of Open Access. Can one have a longer couplet e.g. 'Gratis OA' that is not compatible with an element of the couplet (OA)? I think this is confusing and is presumably why people do not frequently use these terms.
I suggest we use the term cost-free to unambiguously denote cost-free access to a resource.
Metacladistics ( talk) 14:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I added this form to the article.
Surprisingly - many open access request forms do not themselves have open licenses. Thanks to Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition for providing this one. It does have some problems. This particular OA request form is from about 2006. It references to Science Commons, which is defunct now and a distraction. Also it is a PDF when we need a version with more accessible text.
Workup of this document is discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Open#Open_access_release_request. It would be nice for Wikipedia to provide a usable request form. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
While I understand the point, I think that linking to WP:SIGNAL in an article is not appropriate. The project space is not appropriate for a reference, explicit or implied, because of their internal nature, and for the simple fact that it is a wiki. The information referenced should either be included in the article with the proper references, or else just not mentioned at all.--17:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Really nothing special about India; most of this article are minor, non-notable non-events ("Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) adopted its Open Access policy in September 2013"). Whatever is salvageable can be integrated into the article on open access. Randykitty ( talk) 10:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I am a little circumspect of changes made by 140.247.136.255 on Oct 4th. Adding the point about Harvard 2012 guidelines seems fair enough, but the user also replaced a couple of the sources with ones from Harvard (same content different web host). Quickly searching the IP shows that it belongs to Harvard university ip trace. Does anyone want to weight in that might be more familiar with WP:COI ?? -- Frederika Eilers ( talk) 12:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The lead article mentions advantages and disadvantages of open access. I know there have been financial arguments against open access publishing. Are there other arguments? Megs ( talk) 00:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not think I want a misconception in this article but several people and Suber especially like to articulate myths. This was just published.
I do feel that there is enough misunderstanding about open access to merit addressing erroneous beliefs in this article, and the sources cover misconceptions well also, but I still feel a little strange about including a "false rumors" section in this article and I am not sure of the right way to do this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The early discussions about open access nearly 20 years ago imagined that there would be a great difference between the color tagging, particularly green and gold. In practice this distinction hardly mattered to users or publishers even in the beginning and has been less important as time has progressed. The entire philosophy almost seems like a perspective grounded in how paper journals worked. "Journal" is even a fuzzy concept now so many articles are either part of a mega-journal which could never be reasonably bound in paper or they are connected with lightweight journals which either evaporate or publish steadily on focused topics but have so little content that they are more of a themed irregular publication than a journal.
I propose to de-prioritize the color coding description. There was a theory decades ago that it would be fundamental to understanding OA, but it never was and definitely is not now. Instead of focuses on the publisher I think we should focus on how people access the articles, and designations of green/gold/ whatever do little to communicate that. Also I think copyright license has come to matter much more than the color model. Free and open copyright licenses were not even a cultural when this ideology came to be as the 3B statements came 2003-4, Creative Commons was established 15 January 2001 (same day as Wikipedia), and Wikipedia only adopted CC in ~2009, with meta:Licensing update ending 10 years ago in August 2009. I am sharing these dates to demonstrate that (1) the beginning of the open access movement had very different concepts than 2009 and (2) now in 2019 I think a typical person in this field would look back to ~2000 and ~2009 and say that all the ideas people had then were untenable for how things happen now. Also in 10 more years, 2029, everything changes again because we have not even applied machine readability to academic publishing yet but that will be the norm very soon.
The sources are a mess and I am not sure if we can find a narrative of this, but I wanted to post about this because for so long the focus of this article has been color and it would be a big change to de-prioritize that in favor of anything else. Thoughts from anyone else? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
There's a figure with "The number and proportion of open access articles split between Gold, Green, Hybrid, Bronze and closed access (from 1950 - 2016).[2]". But "Bronze" access isn't defined in the article.
The source is "Swan, Alma (2012). "Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access". UNESCO. Retrieved 2019-04-14."
But I can't find the word "bronze" in the PDF either ( https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215863 ). I can't find the graphs themselves.
Is this source correct?
I found another source which confirms the affirmation and defines bronze access though: https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/bronze-open-access-supersedes-green-and-gold
Best,
11:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Bronze was "invented" with Piwowar and Priem 2018 https://peerj.com/articles/4375/ Nemo 15:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
As part of updating the article, I've been thinking about a slight reorganisation and expansion of content:
Current:
|
Proposed
|
Any opinions? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Inspired by the overhauls of the Gene and Enzyme articles a few years ago, I'd love to have a general update on this article ( xtools stats, pageview stats). A few people have been thinking about possible improvements that could be made in terms of structure and content in a this google document. People in the meeting agreed to post subsequent discussion on (or accessible via) this talkpage and start editing the wikipedia page. I'd love to get it up to a level where it could go through internal review ( WP:GAN, WP:FAC) and external peer review ( WP:JAN). We were also thinking of having some conference all meetups every couple of weeks to keep up momentum. Would love people to get involved (current participant list below). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 01:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Interested participants:
Poll to organising meeting time:
https://doodle.com/poll/vn7bkiy67mnekqyu
Voice chat location:
https://meet.jit.si/OpenAccessWikipedia
Meeting notes to be written:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XabEoQ0FVMRvgvb7Kf0fPhQYQZ7W2qlnRZ8ZsaO7I8/edit#
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
09:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Today's huge addition of content has also added some stuff that does not appear to belong here, because it is not specific to OA. For example, "Correlation between impact factor and quality", which applies to subscription-based journals just as much as to OA ones. The same goes for the discussion of peer review or a discussion of "Representativeness of proprietary databases". We have articles on these subjects where this material could be merged, but it doesn't belong here. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the delayed response in getting around to this. I've now re-read through all the current sections (initial total 19k words, of which 14k were from the recent additions). I'm make a start by moving some of the sections that'd fit better into other articles and merging a few sections that go well with other info. Initial progress below:
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 12:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. I've started to do a couple of further content section moves:
Will make another effort to move the editing forward in the coming week. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 12:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I've done some further work integrating the new content (aiming to retain the OA-specific aspects) and also updating much of the old
I've also done some more updates of older content
{{
Primary sources}}
tag.I'm still unclear why there are so many 'notes' that are basically references. I also think that there's a bit of overall between the #Motivations and #Effects sections (since many of those effects are the motivations for many authors, publishers and funders). I hope it doesn't come across as being too harsh in the pruning but I'm aiming for greater readability and focus. Eventually I'd like to get the page down to maybe 4-6000 words (excluding references). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC) updated 06:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC) & 08:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC), 10:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Anonymous editor from 68.144.192.39 and reversion of 966291239, "Older source was much better".
The same source was listed twice. The duplicate citation for was removed. It is not clear to me how duplicating the citation is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Sylvain Ribault, Weirdly, Google Scholar isn't quite calculating compliance with funder mandates, most of which require an OA license, not just free-to-read. The tool only checks if the text is available ("We do not check if it has an open-access licence" [4]).
E.g. it's counting this free-to-read article (OUP uses an open access logo even when it's still under OUP's copyright) but the funder's policy requires "associated licence, such as a Creative Commons licence".
I still think it's notable, but have added a clarifier to the sentence. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 05:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Like everything else, OA model has some advantages and some disadvantages. The advantages are discussed thoroughly in this page but the downsides of OA are not mentioned at all. Here are a few sources that can be used on this topic:
Some Online Journals Will Publish Fake Science, For A Fee
What the Open-Access Movement Doesn't Want You to Know
The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access
Marzbans ( talk) 06:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm an library science grad student taking a look at this page as part of a Wikipedia editing assignment for a course on Information Policy. This page has been identified by our instructor as needing some work, both structurally and for minor issues. I'm going to be making some edits, most likely starting with working on wordiness and readability but I wanted to introduce myself as you may be seeing a lot of edits from a new user! I'm reviewing the talk page for areas that have been previously highlighted for improvement. Feel free to share priorities or feedback.~~~~ ACBatSLIS ( talk) 18:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
On the basis of WP like other encyclopedias preferring entry by the noun, and for consistency with other articles, I ask for opinion on changing the name to "Open access publisher" DGG 05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"Open access publisher" as a title would make no sense. The article is about "open access" in the sense of scientific publishing. The article is not only about "open access publishers" such as PLoS or BioMed Central, it is about the whole concept of open access. There's no reason to change the title. Fences and windows 23:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The section "Open access by the numbers" used to contain an explicit call for statistics in support of the "open access" movement. I have removed this inappropriate call to action, and tagged the section for merger. Based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I think the best way to handle this material is to convert it into prose, and simply delete any statistics that are blatantly not neutral. (Others have also complained about this section on other talk pages, before this article was reorganized.) -- Beland 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
== —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
The question of whether this page should be merged with open access journal has been asked again. There are some reasons for having two pages:
Opinion? DGG 05:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As sharnad points out, "open access publishing" is ambiguous. It means either the publication of open access journals, or a system of whatever sort for publishing that produces open access, whether through open access journals ("gold OA") or self-archiving ("green OA"). This is the general article, and I have therefore moved this article back to the term Open access (publishing) DGG ( talk) 06:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Surely this is about scholarly literature, not all information. So why are newspapers mentioned? This article is degenerating, it needs a total overhaul. Fences and windows ( talk) 01:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
the article appears to claim that the Annals of Mathematics is open access. It is not. Try their webpage; you can't read the articles without a subscription (which costs money). 137.82.175.12 ( talk) 01:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The last paragraph which begins, "In May 2006, the US Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)" seems to be an unsourced commentary for the most part. Anyone want to take a stab at finding some sources? Otherwise, I'll move it here for further discussion. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I found a text saying that free access only allows downloading and private printing for personal use. Is that correct?
In the context of academic publishing, does free content mean that I can further distribute to anyone, for example on paper or on my own website? I.e. does it mean the same thing as free content? Are usually free content licenses like creative commons or GFDL used, or some othern license form? Any restrictions regarding non-commercial use?
In other contexts than academic publishing, "free access" does not necesserely mean free content.
/Magnus
I'm concerned that many of the recent edits from User:Crusio have been to the net effect of preserving anti-OA bias. He personally has somewhat of a conflict of interest (as founding editor of one academic journal), but the problem is broader than that. There are sections which are fair; but others where there's lots of subtle anti-OA bias, which I believe should be removed because of WP:NPV goals.
Exactly how is it that assertions that grant requirements for OA can be described as unwarranted governmental intrusion, with no cite provided -- my cite request was reverted!! -- without even acknowledging the hypocrisy deriving from the fact that much of that research was in the first place funded by "intrusion" from said government? Or that non-governmental funders also exist, and also have interests in OA? I see three resolutions: provide the cite; note the hypocrisy/bias; or remove the biased assertion. I've tried the first two. Is there another, or is it perhaps time to try the third? I get the feeling I'll see another bias-preserving revert the instant I do so...
There are other examples of such subtle bias. Presenting, unopposed, arguments which presume everyone interested in research has access to well connected and populated research libraries comes to mind. Denying that just being able to browse a research collection is an important process, too ... that's just basic cognitive science, new ideas often are seeded by random juxtapositions which can't happen when the only way you get access to papers is to search cites and wait a month to get them all via some interlibrary loan. (Librarians are not always eager to do the inter-library thing either, so the fact that it might be theoretically possible may be insignificant.) Ease of access to information can be a significant factor; certainly when I've done research, a month's lag would have completely prevented success.
It's perhaps understandable that this article not really dive into the institutional politics underpinning some OA objections ("this is a threat to my institution"), and advocates ("that institution is an obstacle"), but refusal to acknowledge existence of such conflicts does not prevent them from being significant factors. And such refusal is itself a subtle form of anti-OA bias, in that it permits established institutions to present themselves as neutral actors ... when they are anything but that.
And another big issue here is that large parts of this article are fairly chaotic. How can such stuff be fixed when folk like User:Crusio instantly revert anything fix-like ... instead of providing better fixes? Including in some cases, removing valid cites; or facts that could only be claimed to be controversial as part of an effort to hide uncomfortable issues.
Color me puzzled. It's long been my understanding that WP prefers incremental improvements. How do we get there from here?
-- 69.226.238.251 ( talk) 09:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There is some discussion in the AMSCI-forum and foundation-l on WP and OA. Although I do not appreciate most of Harnad's positions I also see Open Access (Publishing) as onse-sided and therefore POV. The name of the article should be: Open Access (Scholarly Movement) -- FrobenChristoph ( talk) 15:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I had to fix a link today
An alternative link would be
http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/frpaa/index.shtml
G. Robert Shiplett 20:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett ( talk • contribs)
In the criticism section there is: "The "article processing charges" for open access shifts the burden of payment from readers to authors," How is this different from the fees charged by all Journals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRWolfie- ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any real evidence that "open access" beyond scholarly journals is anything more than extrapolation on the part of Wikipedia editors, unless anyone has any references of note. There is an interesting comparison between open access scholarly journals and "free" business models (advertising supported, donation supported, etc.), and this should be covered in electronic publishing, and probably also publishing and broadcasting.
Open access journal was trying to be the article on "full open access journals" in parallel with Hybrid open access journal and Delayed open access journal which are mostly pros and cons and lists. But the ambiguous title has resulted in lots of overlap with Open access (publishing), including a general overview, advantages, disadvantages, criticism, and history. I think a merge of the two articles would make the content considerably less redundant and easier to navigate. "Open access journal" is a fine title for the resulting article, given the assumption of a scope which only covers scholarly journals. Given the length of the resulting article, spinning off "History of open access journals" would also be necessary. Any objections? -- Beland ( talk) 08:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I.
Are you proposingto merge OAJ with hybrid OAJ and delayed OAJ? or to merge OAJ with OA(publishing)
I hope you do not mean the later: Open access journal means a journal which is published open access. "gold open access", like PLOS. The predominant method of open access at the present day is the archiving of author (or published) versions of articles such as PMC or Arxiv, or doing this in institution repositories, as at Southampton or Cornell. ("green" open access). Open access journals refers only to the first. Using it in the more general sense would be a total misunderstanding.
II.
I therefore assume you mean the three OA journal articles:
It would be difficult to merge delayedOA journals into OAjournals, because delayed oa is not actually OA and does not meet the definitions. A delayed oa journal is not an OA journal. It's a more or less close approach to an OA journal. Nobody who actually supports OA has ever accepted it as OA. Many of us them have supported it as an intirim measure, to get publishers accustomed to the idea, but that's the most. Some don't even support it, as being a harmful diversion from actual OA.
Hybrid OA journals -- that article needs a lot of work to update, because most commercial journals are now hybrid oa in principle, including every springer journal--although not many articles have been published that way yet. The only hybrid journal of importance that does contain a good deal of OA is PNAS.
DGG ( talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this update as it really is illegible but i invite anyone else who can make sense of it to re-insert it in a format that makes sense.
Silent1 02:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This section just reaks of weasels (ie. the wall-buiders like Elsevier) clinging to their defenses. Would somebody more knowledgable care to clean it up? -- 90.157.169.77 ( talk) 15:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a rice-bowl battle afoot between some of the big commercial publishing concerns on one side and open access scholars on the other. I suspect this should find some discussion in the article. Obviously Wikipedia (like the rest of the online world) is intrinsically biased in favour of publications that allow free access, but we still treat wp:PAYWALL sources as nominally equal. This is going to be interesting. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
We really should mention the Finch committee and related developments: [1], [2]. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The addition of an unreferenced list of "Major Open Access publishers" many of which are red links is POV and wikipedia is not a directory. Theroadislong ( talk) 18:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Gold OA and Green OA currently redirect here, and a brief definition of both is given in the introductory paragraph. I think, though, that they both merit their own article. Any opinions on that? -- Daniel Mietchen 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
New section title added, so as to better reflect the discussion below.
Reconsidering the matter, I think it would be good to spice up Open access journal with some information on OA book publishing and to rename that article to Open access publishing then. As this may easily lead to confusion with Open access (publishing), what about renaming this one into something like Open access (scientific literature)? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS ( talk) 00:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we focus more on the question on who pays? Author-paid content vs. free-to-deposit repositories?
"Open-access" focuses only on the reader. Many commercial journals offer open access if the authors pay. That gives well-funded projects an advantage over less well-funded work. The option to waive fees is not realistic, as I have found out. They told me they go by country of origin mostly, individual situations are to difficult for them to verify.
So there is author-paid content and free-to-deposit content. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.139.6.250 (
talk)
00:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
User:78.15.203.238 has suggested that it is a violation of viewpoint neutrality to call journals that do not provide immediate free online access "non-OA journals," if they ever, at any time, in the near or distant future following publication, make their articles free online. By that reasoning, all people who ever give up smoking in the near or distant future are already "non-smokers," now (and it's non-neutral to suggest otherwise). So are all women who eventually get pregnant, in fact "pregnant" now.
There is of course a simple solution to this: distinguish OA journals from OA articles. An article is OA if and when it is freely accessible online. No ambiguity there. It can be non-OA yesterday and OA today. Indeed, it can be non-OA again tomorrow. Not so for journals. If a journal is an OA journal, that means all if its articles are freely accessible, permanently, immediately upon publication. Otherwise it is simply not an OA journal (though some of its articles might eventually be made OA, either by the journal or by their author). The only special case worth naming is "hybrid OA/non-OA" journals -- the ones for which articles are non-OA, except if the author pays for OA publication, in which case they are made freely accessible, permanently, immediately upon publication. All other journals that do not make all their articles permanently free online immediately upon publication are simply non-OA journals. A journal may make its articles free online after a delay; but that does not make it an "OA journal," any more than giving up smoking or getting pregnant Thursday makes you a non-smoker or pregnant on the preceding Tuesday.
For an article, OA is a "state"; for a journal, it is a "trait." Loosen up the latter and you will not only generate a huge batch of "OA" journals because they free their contents online 80 years after publication (calling themselves "DOA" journals), but the slippery slope will also lead to "OA" journals that cost only a little online ("LOA" journals).
This is all just word-play -- vendors trying to promote their product by attaching buzz-words to it that connote something people value. But what is valued here is unambiguous: free online access. And if that's not there, now, it's not OA. harnad ( talk) Stevan Harnad 03:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a short paragraph noting that some people argue that the public does not need access to specialized journal, etc... and references an article to that effect. The reference number is 83. I went through this article and could not find that argument anywhere. I could have missed it, but if I didn't, the reference ought to be removed. Perhaps the whole par. should be tossed if we can't find a ref to anyone who holds it. I'm sure SOMEONE holds that pov? But maybe not...I sure don't.
I propose to merge the article Predatory open access publishing into the criticism section here. I realize that this article is already very long, but that is mostly due to a long-overdue pruning (the whole article should be brought to compliance with WP:MOS, for example). "Predatory journal" or "predatory publishing" is a concept that for the moment basically rests on one person (Jeffrey Beall) and all sources in the current article are interviews with him or reporting of his views. So while there has been media attention for his concept, I don't think that there is material enough for a stand-alone article and that it would be enough to have a short paragraph in the criticism section here describing his views. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It's ridiculously bad. I still don't know what exactly it is that should be accessibly openly. By the way, in Wikipedia, you don't abbreviate the main topic of the article. Write "open access" and not "OA". 130.92.9.55 ( talk) 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I realize this page is on a topic of great interest to Wikipedians, but as a working profesor in the humanities, it contains far too many unsourced assertions of opinion, stated as fact. I deleted one sentence that was framed as opinion, completely unsourced and quite inaccurate on several points: "However, this argument has no relevance to academic publishing, because scientific journals do not pay royalties to article authors and researchers are funded by their institutions and funders." User:Randykitty chose to revert my deletion without explanation. "Academic publishing" includes much more than science and much more than journals, and professors like Toni Morrison, Philip Roth, Charles Baxter, Ann Beattie, and many others earn the majority of their income from sales of books, which are formally considered "academic research" within the university system, and are not funded by taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately the bulk of the research on Open Access is written by advocates and often fails to take into account what are clear and obvious primary facts--for example, directly implying that all professors work in the sciences and stating that all research is taxpayer-funded, none of which is even close to being true, as can easily be seen by looking at the faculty roster of any university. Is there a way to make this page more balanced/NPOV without getting into a giant war? Wichitalineman ( talk) 18:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Wichitalineman expressed a desire to have sections in this article describing the application of the open access content to things other than academic journals. This is not the focus of open access, however, this has been done. I wanted to make a request for sources about these things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Some scholarly publications are like academic journal articles in the sense that the writers have always given them away for free and requested that all people be able to read them. Such publications include theses, dissertations, preprints, postprints, and perhaps related datasets. If anyone has sources which describe how the open access concept applies to these things then please share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Some publications written by scholars have traditionally been sold or produced for hire, such as magazine or newspaper articles, books, and various creative derivatives of academic journal articles. If anyone has sources which describe how the open access concept applies to these things then please share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Wichitalineman informed me that Elsevier published an OA issue of one of its journals - see here. This journal includes some excellent criticism of OA which could be integrated into this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello! On Friday 19 September 2013 some attendees at OKCon, a conference of the Open Knowledge Foundation, will be participating in an effort to improve this Wikipedia article and others related to the concept of open science. Anyone who would like to contribute to this article as part of this drive to improvement should do so! Details of the event are at Wikipedia:Workshop/Open_Science_Workshop_(Geneva)/References#Main_References. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The sections with external links, article as a whole but especially "External links," "Further reading," and "Empirical studies" all need cleanup per WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. Given how well-referenced the article is, there's really no need for all but a few external links. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've commented out two paragraphs from the 'Definition' section, rather then delete them, because I'd like to heard other people's opinions on whether they should be removed. My reasons are twofold. Firstly, it reads rather like original research, rather than being a summation of relevant other sources. Secondly, the paragraphs in question broaden the term open access to include many other things beyond research literature. I believe that these other materials that are mentioned, such as newspapers and broadcasts, should not be included in the category open access, even when they share similar characteristics. The Budapest/Bethesda/Berlin declarations refer only to open access to the research literature and I would argue that this narrower definition is what is generally meant by open access. - Lawsonstu ( talk) 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Currently this article emphasizes the differences between green and gold OA and the adoption of OA. I would rather this article emphasize what OA is rather than how it can be implemented. I added a history section and a motivation section. I may make other changes. I just wanted to say hello here if anyone wants to discuss what I am doing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Since I did a major rearrange of this article I wanted to share my rationale. I am not soliciting for feedback at this time but any feedback here or development of the article would be welcome. I intend to begin working regularly on this article for a while.
I have been reading Suber's book. It is available gratis here if anyone wants to check it out with me. I do not think the section headings of the book are right for replication in a Wikipedia article but I am still thinking about Peter's presentation, and obviously Peter has been putting a lot of thought into outlining this himself. I just rearranged this article a lot, but in all these edits, I was not adding or removing content. Right now I have condensed all the content into four sections
I want to get rid of the "see also" section by having better wikilinks in the article and replicating this content in the navboxes below. I also want the further reading section gone after integrating most of those sources into the article and putting just a few in external links. These are just thoughts. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
There is disagreement as to whether Wikipedia articles should use the phrase 'open access', or 'open-access' with a hyphen. Over the years this has resulted in the article Open access journal being moved back and forth a few times. I thought it be a good idea to have a discussion here, with everyone giving their reasons, in order to come up with a general guideline for editors to follow when editing articles on the topic. I am inviting everyone with an opinion on this to leave comments with their reasons below.
Previous discussions include: here, here, and the edit history of the article Open access journal.
As I see it, there are three options:
My strong preference is for option 1, for the following reasons.
'Open access' is the preferred term among many of the people and organisations who are responsible for defining the concept (e.g. SPARC, Peter Suber). I believe that it is the version of the term most commonly in use (although I do not have statistics to back up this claim). Many organizations and initiatives outside Wikipedia use the form without a hyphen (e.g., Directory of Open Access Journals, Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, Budapest Open Access Initiative, Global Open Access Forum, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, Registry of Open Access Repositories, Social Science Open Access Repository). I light of this fact, I see no reason why Wikipedia should use the hyphenated version when the term stands alone.
The question of whether to use a hyphen to describe something which is open access, such as 'open-access journal', is perhaps a slightly different question. I think the phrase 'open access' is the name of a concept, and should thus be treated as a single phrase to describe this concept. Therefore an open access journal is a journal which is 'open access'. This means that a hyphen is not needed. I hyphen would be needed if you were to say 'openly-accessible journal', for instance, because this phrase describes a journal which is openly-accessible, rather than a journal which is 'open access'.
For these reasons, I believe that we should only use the term 'open access'. This differs from the standard usage for hyphens set out in Wikipedia:HYPHEN#Hyphens, but is consistent with how the term is used outside Wikipedia. The Manual of Style is there to inform the way we write on Wikipedia, and not to dictate how language should be used. Wikipedia articles should reflect the real world.
- Lawsonstu ( talk) 08:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Suggest adding the text (to the end of the last paragraph of this section):
although this is often not the case with mathematicians everywhere, and researchers in all areas working in institutions in developing countries. Strictly speaking, if it is a requirement for authors to pay to have their articles published, then open access is put on the level of advertising or the vanity press. [1]
Ankababel ( talk) 11:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
It is a matter of degree. A clue is in the fact that, as you state above, "...there are dozens upon dozens of respectable OA journals (and even more disrepectable ones..." ("dozens upon dozens" — surely an exaggeration!). My point is that accepting payment for publication moves the journal from a pure scholarly publication towards the vanity press. This, surely, is indisputable. Perhaps you are just disputing where the boundary should be put — I put it at the pure end. Ankababel ( talk) 09:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
New to talk pages but thought I'd raise this.
I propose the deletion of the definitions of the 'Libre OA' and 'Gratis OA' in the definition section of this article. These terms are not widely used IMHO, and they are not well defined (unlike that of Open Access itself which has clearly been well defined in this article).
Furthermore, given the definition of Open Access. It seems to me that the term 'libre' is a superfluous addition. Open Access is already libre in it's definition. Gratis (only?) would also seem to contradict the defintion of Open Access. Can one have a longer couplet e.g. 'Gratis OA' that is not compatible with an element of the couplet (OA)? I think this is confusing and is presumably why people do not frequently use these terms.
I suggest we use the term cost-free to unambiguously denote cost-free access to a resource.
Metacladistics ( talk) 14:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I added this form to the article.
Surprisingly - many open access request forms do not themselves have open licenses. Thanks to Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition for providing this one. It does have some problems. This particular OA request form is from about 2006. It references to Science Commons, which is defunct now and a distraction. Also it is a PDF when we need a version with more accessible text.
Workup of this document is discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Open#Open_access_release_request. It would be nice for Wikipedia to provide a usable request form. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
While I understand the point, I think that linking to WP:SIGNAL in an article is not appropriate. The project space is not appropriate for a reference, explicit or implied, because of their internal nature, and for the simple fact that it is a wiki. The information referenced should either be included in the article with the proper references, or else just not mentioned at all.--17:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Really nothing special about India; most of this article are minor, non-notable non-events ("Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) adopted its Open Access policy in September 2013"). Whatever is salvageable can be integrated into the article on open access. Randykitty ( talk) 10:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I am a little circumspect of changes made by 140.247.136.255 on Oct 4th. Adding the point about Harvard 2012 guidelines seems fair enough, but the user also replaced a couple of the sources with ones from Harvard (same content different web host). Quickly searching the IP shows that it belongs to Harvard university ip trace. Does anyone want to weight in that might be more familiar with WP:COI ?? -- Frederika Eilers ( talk) 12:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The lead article mentions advantages and disadvantages of open access. I know there have been financial arguments against open access publishing. Are there other arguments? Megs ( talk) 00:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not think I want a misconception in this article but several people and Suber especially like to articulate myths. This was just published.
I do feel that there is enough misunderstanding about open access to merit addressing erroneous beliefs in this article, and the sources cover misconceptions well also, but I still feel a little strange about including a "false rumors" section in this article and I am not sure of the right way to do this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The early discussions about open access nearly 20 years ago imagined that there would be a great difference between the color tagging, particularly green and gold. In practice this distinction hardly mattered to users or publishers even in the beginning and has been less important as time has progressed. The entire philosophy almost seems like a perspective grounded in how paper journals worked. "Journal" is even a fuzzy concept now so many articles are either part of a mega-journal which could never be reasonably bound in paper or they are connected with lightweight journals which either evaporate or publish steadily on focused topics but have so little content that they are more of a themed irregular publication than a journal.
I propose to de-prioritize the color coding description. There was a theory decades ago that it would be fundamental to understanding OA, but it never was and definitely is not now. Instead of focuses on the publisher I think we should focus on how people access the articles, and designations of green/gold/ whatever do little to communicate that. Also I think copyright license has come to matter much more than the color model. Free and open copyright licenses were not even a cultural when this ideology came to be as the 3B statements came 2003-4, Creative Commons was established 15 January 2001 (same day as Wikipedia), and Wikipedia only adopted CC in ~2009, with meta:Licensing update ending 10 years ago in August 2009. I am sharing these dates to demonstrate that (1) the beginning of the open access movement had very different concepts than 2009 and (2) now in 2019 I think a typical person in this field would look back to ~2000 and ~2009 and say that all the ideas people had then were untenable for how things happen now. Also in 10 more years, 2029, everything changes again because we have not even applied machine readability to academic publishing yet but that will be the norm very soon.
The sources are a mess and I am not sure if we can find a narrative of this, but I wanted to post about this because for so long the focus of this article has been color and it would be a big change to de-prioritize that in favor of anything else. Thoughts from anyone else? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
There's a figure with "The number and proportion of open access articles split between Gold, Green, Hybrid, Bronze and closed access (from 1950 - 2016).[2]". But "Bronze" access isn't defined in the article.
The source is "Swan, Alma (2012). "Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access". UNESCO. Retrieved 2019-04-14."
But I can't find the word "bronze" in the PDF either ( https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215863 ). I can't find the graphs themselves.
Is this source correct?
I found another source which confirms the affirmation and defines bronze access though: https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/bronze-open-access-supersedes-green-and-gold
Best,
11:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Bronze was "invented" with Piwowar and Priem 2018 https://peerj.com/articles/4375/ Nemo 15:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
As part of updating the article, I've been thinking about a slight reorganisation and expansion of content:
Current:
|
Proposed
|
Any opinions? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Inspired by the overhauls of the Gene and Enzyme articles a few years ago, I'd love to have a general update on this article ( xtools stats, pageview stats). A few people have been thinking about possible improvements that could be made in terms of structure and content in a this google document. People in the meeting agreed to post subsequent discussion on (or accessible via) this talkpage and start editing the wikipedia page. I'd love to get it up to a level where it could go through internal review ( WP:GAN, WP:FAC) and external peer review ( WP:JAN). We were also thinking of having some conference all meetups every couple of weeks to keep up momentum. Would love people to get involved (current participant list below). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 01:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Interested participants:
Poll to organising meeting time:
https://doodle.com/poll/vn7bkiy67mnekqyu
Voice chat location:
https://meet.jit.si/OpenAccessWikipedia
Meeting notes to be written:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XabEoQ0FVMRvgvb7Kf0fPhQYQZ7W2qlnRZ8ZsaO7I8/edit#
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk
09:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Today's huge addition of content has also added some stuff that does not appear to belong here, because it is not specific to OA. For example, "Correlation between impact factor and quality", which applies to subscription-based journals just as much as to OA ones. The same goes for the discussion of peer review or a discussion of "Representativeness of proprietary databases". We have articles on these subjects where this material could be merged, but it doesn't belong here. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the delayed response in getting around to this. I've now re-read through all the current sections (initial total 19k words, of which 14k were from the recent additions). I'm make a start by moving some of the sections that'd fit better into other articles and merging a few sections that go well with other info. Initial progress below:
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 12:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. I've started to do a couple of further content section moves:
Will make another effort to move the editing forward in the coming week. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 12:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I've done some further work integrating the new content (aiming to retain the OA-specific aspects) and also updating much of the old
I've also done some more updates of older content
{{
Primary sources}}
tag.I'm still unclear why there are so many 'notes' that are basically references. I also think that there's a bit of overall between the #Motivations and #Effects sections (since many of those effects are the motivations for many authors, publishers and funders). I hope it doesn't come across as being too harsh in the pruning but I'm aiming for greater readability and focus. Eventually I'd like to get the page down to maybe 4-6000 words (excluding references). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC) updated 06:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC) & 08:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC), 10:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Anonymous editor from 68.144.192.39 and reversion of 966291239, "Older source was much better".
The same source was listed twice. The duplicate citation for was removed. It is not clear to me how duplicating the citation is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Sylvain Ribault, Weirdly, Google Scholar isn't quite calculating compliance with funder mandates, most of which require an OA license, not just free-to-read. The tool only checks if the text is available ("We do not check if it has an open-access licence" [4]).
E.g. it's counting this free-to-read article (OUP uses an open access logo even when it's still under OUP's copyright) but the funder's policy requires "associated licence, such as a Creative Commons licence".
I still think it's notable, but have added a clarifier to the sentence. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 05:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Like everything else, OA model has some advantages and some disadvantages. The advantages are discussed thoroughly in this page but the downsides of OA are not mentioned at all. Here are a few sources that can be used on this topic:
Some Online Journals Will Publish Fake Science, For A Fee
What the Open-Access Movement Doesn't Want You to Know
The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access
Marzbans ( talk) 06:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm an library science grad student taking a look at this page as part of a Wikipedia editing assignment for a course on Information Policy. This page has been identified by our instructor as needing some work, both structurally and for minor issues. I'm going to be making some edits, most likely starting with working on wordiness and readability but I wanted to introduce myself as you may be seeing a lot of edits from a new user! I'm reviewing the talk page for areas that have been previously highlighted for improvement. Feel free to share priorities or feedback.~~~~ ACBatSLIS ( talk) 18:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)